Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Reader Presto Vivace blesses us with news that the state of New Jersey "has banned motorists from making big smiles [for their license pictures] because such expressions don't work with facial recognition software." Now that passports are by decree grim and glasses-free, I'm expecting the next phase to involve the banning of facial hair, lips, and any hair that blocks the ears.

That's not new. No smiles in Ohio, either-- I renewed my license over a year ago, and was quite firmly instructed that smiles were not allowed in drivers license photos because it screws up the facial recognition software.

I wonder...is there no way to object to submitting to 'facial recognition' on privacy grounds....maybe associating it with being an un-warranted intrusion on a citizen's privacy without probably cause??

You could always move to [freestateproject.org] a state that doesn't engage in such privacy invasions, such as New Hampshire. Here, you can actually check off a box on the license application form requiring them to not even store your photo in their database.

It's been almost two years since I renewed my license in Virginia too. What's even funnier is that the guy ahead of me had a tee shirt on with Bob Marley on it. The print of Bob smiling on the shirt screwed up the camera (or operator) somehow. After several attempts they made him turn his shirt inside-out.

So no smiles - how about grimaces, massive frowns, or even clown-like pull-your-lips-hoizontally-cross-your-eyes-and-stick-out-your-tounge?

I say treat these asshole bureaucrats with exactly the respect they deserve - either smile or pull one of the above stunts, refuse to change your expression until he snaps the picture, and refuse to move until you get your license. Can't think of a broken law there. Seriously, don't stand for this shit, people.

Actually I don't think the software even "sees" glasses, they don't affect the control point recognition, but glasses can throw human-powered facial recognition off, and it's a lot easier for an official to ask you to remove your glasses when confirming your identity than to have you wear the same style as in your photo if you've changed them or are wearing contacts. Also glasses and flash photography don't get along all that well (glare hides your eyes), and do you really want *another* reason for the barely competent person at the DMV to spend three hours trying to do something simple for the person in front of you?

Given some of the drivers licence photos I've had, I think human facial recognition doesn't need glasses to be thrown off.

One time, I renewed my driver's license and they reused the old photograph. For some reason, though, they darkened my skin in the picture. I commented at the time (pre-9-11) that I looked like I was from the Middle East. (My ancestry is Russia so the photo was very darkened.)

Just refuse to apply for state ID or driver's licenses. If 100's of thousands or millions of drivers refuse to apply for licenses and drive anyway, are they going to shut down the streets and roads? Arrest a large proportion of the entire state's population?

Yup, and lose your ability to drive, vote, have access to government buildings and services...

Not being arch, just pointing out facts.

If 100's of thousands or millions of drivers refuse to apply for licenses and drive anyway, are they going to shut down the streets and roads? Arrest a large proportion of the entire state's population?

Nah, they'll just turn it into another revenue-generation mechanism and continue pounding our collective asses, just from a different angle.

I'm sick and tired of this emerging police state. You're *far* more likely to be struck by lightning or be attacked by sharks than to be killed by a terrorist attack.

Well, now, that all depends on your definition of terrorism - if we go by the dictionary, then a person actually is far more likely to be harmed by a terrorist than struck by lightning. The catch is, said terrorist will likely be wearing a government-issued uniform, and be imbued with authority by whatever fascist regime is in charge at the time.

Yet the sheep continue to baa for more and rush to hand over ever more of their freedom, give the terrorists in government ever more power to enslave them, and fork over ever more of the people's wealth to pay for the chains.

Strat

Yup, it's truly sickening. Also a good part of the reason I always want to punch anyone who pops off with "you get the government you deserve." No, motherfucker, I get stuck the government you deserve, 'cuz you (collectively speaking) are a bunch of self-centered pussies, too scared of your own shadow to stand up for yourself and your neighbors.

I am still trying the Steven Wright method. He managed to have his licence photo taken out of focus. That way, when the cops pull him over, they stare at the photo for a second and then say, "Here. You can go."

Despite my best effors, I have not been able to accomplish this... yet.

No, no, you've got it wrong - it's not a matter of getting the photo taken out of focus, you have to be out of focus when the photo is taken - it can be a bit of a challenge, but no camera can take a focused photo of a person who's out of focus to begin with.

It's also worth noting that Virginia sued Northrop either last year or two years ago for issues over creating driver's licenses, so I suspect New Jersey decided to also contract with Northrop for the same system.

Oh well, their loss. Everyone in VA looks like a serial killer on their black-and-white photos.

Great. Now anybody with the simplest image-processing software can see exactly how you'll look with and without a beard, and with and without hair -- just mirror the appropriate part of the image.

Now, if you're really paranoid, there ought to be all sorts of ways to do the equivalent of dazzle camouflage [wikipedia.org] in your DMV photo. Asymmetric stripes in your beard or hair, a bit of Darth Maul work with a sharpie...

I've heard heard rumors of a rogue DOT agent who has pledged to shave all men who do not shave themselves. I think perhaps a clue to this mysterious paradox has been provided by your link. It must be him.

Actually, they do. They have to be able to prove it was you driving if it goes to court.

YMMV. Per Iowa law, it's up to you to show you either rented out the vehicle or produce the police report you filed when it got stolen. State legislature considered banning traffic cameras in general, but the big cities that use them rely on the revenue and lobbied against it. On the plus side -- if there is a real 'plus' -- it's not a criminal or traffic offense.

Yeah...no. That's simply untrue. I went into the post office to get my passport photo taken last month and they didn't have me remove my glasses, nor did the Department of State seem to have any issues with my wearing them in my photo, since I just received my new passport last week.

I think I read that there are some rules against a few particular types of glasses that obscure too much of the face (e.g. chunky frames), but they had no issues with my standard looking thin frames.

NJ isn't the only DMV doing stuff like this to make facial recognition easier. If they won't let you smile, try to turn your head so you are looking at the camera at an angle - part of the algorithm uses the distance between your eyes so turning your head, even slightly, in a simple 2D photo is going to change that. Width of nose and shape of cheekbones are also part of the equation so stuff cotton balls up your nose and in your cheeks and then just pretend you have a cold. Mascara helps too because it trys to figure out the depth of your eye sockets from the 2D photo too.

Beyond all that a big question that none of these DMVs have had to answer is what the hell does the DMV need facial recognition for? It is a license to drive, if you get pulled over and you don't have a license on you (which is not illegal, you are only required to be licensed, not actually carry it with you when you drive that's just for convenience) they can just type your name in the computer in their car and bring up your DMV record and visually confirm your identity, no computerized facial recognition needed.

Beyond all that a big question that none of these DMVs have had to answer is what the hell does the DMV need facial recognition for?

As I said in a higher thread, it's primarily to make sure that you don't get cards issued in multiple names. That is apparently attempted on a fairly regular basis, to the point that essentially every state has put in these systems to stop fraud. And they do actually catch people.

That is a plausible explanation, but I would like to see an evaluation of the trade-offs. How many fakers do they catch that would not have been caught otherwise, for example with a closer examination of the required paperwork. And, is that worth the extra cost, both monetary for the system and the cost to law-abiding citizens of misuse.

I adopted my son from Ethiopia a few years ago and had to go to a Homeland security office a few hours away from me for an entire day to fill out paperwork and get every single finger, and even my palms printed. Then they took pictures of me from every angle imaginable. I told the homeland security agent "Well I guess going off the grid won't be an option anymore" he laughed and said "Yea, you're definitely in the system now"

On the bright side, I went to buy a handgun recently and the store owner called in my background check to the FBI. He gave them my SS# and then said "Oh... really? Already?" and hung up. He said that what usually happens is they research it and call him back. He's never had them just approve it over the phone in a matter of seconds like that. So I guess when the government has already logged every cell in your body already there are at least some benefits.

I guess if you want to get away with something you had better be smiling the whole time... if you mess up pattern matching by having a smile in the official exemplar then it would follow that you mess up pattern matching by having a smile in the sample to be compared, right?

The facial recognition software isn't really to compare with your photos in public, it's primarily so that can check within the system whether you're getting licenses issued for yourself under different names.

Apparently the first link is broken now, but here's some text that was there: "A man has been charged with trying to get an identification card from the Pennsylvania DOT under a name not his own. PennDOT's facial recognition computer program discovered the discrepancy. Jose Alejandro Velazquez-Rodriguez, 29, was charged with tampering with public records or information. He attempted to get a Pennsylvania identification card with the name of Steven Huerta sometime between July 16 and 27 at the DMV office in Gettysburg."

Personally, I think I'd prefer to let a few people get fake IDs now and then rather than force all of us who need ID to drive to put up with a facial recognition system. I promise you this will find more and more uses in a "post-9/11 world" where bureaucrats fall over themselves to grab more control.

You can submit your own photo if you follow certain guidelines: i.e. blank background, well lit, no hats/scarves, even no smile, etc

I wish they let you do that. They sort of let you do that with passport photos and that provides plenty of opportunity to tweak the photo in such a way as to confuse facial recognition algos but still pass muster with any human who looks at the photo. Use photoshop to change the distance between your eyes, smooth out your cheekbones, fiddle with your jawline, etc. All minor things, but the facial recog algos are fragile (hence the no smiling rule) and small changes that most humans won't even notice can

But the bigger issue is why hasn't renewing process gone digital? why do I need to wait hours to renew my license?

Your DMV sucks, that's why. I recently moved from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island...and quickly realized that the Pennsylvania DMV system is pretty awesome. Last time I had to get my license renewed in PA I popped in after work and had my new license in my hand within half an hour. Up here to get a license it takes a month and a half by mail...spent the first three full days after I moved sitting in the damn DMV for crap that would have been done in an hour back in PA. If you're near the NJ/PA border, I sugges

There's the future this is all headed towards. The government will determine the best possible way to ID people is with a rectal scan. You'll go to the DMV, get in a long line of people bent over at the waste along a lengthy formica counter. A professionally dressed gentleman with rubber gloves holding an object that resembles a rubber drain snake will step behind each applicant (or supplicant as the case may be), and share with them the joy that comes from a 12 inch dose of national security. Pants will na